Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	great_a	time_n	world_n	2,761	5	4.2527	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61548	A discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity with an answer to the late Socinian objections against it from Scripture, antiquity and reason, and a preface concerning the different explications of the Trinity, and the tendency of the present Socinian controversie / by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1697 (1697)	Wing S5585; ESTC R14244	164,643	376

That there are three distinct eternal Spirits or Minds in the Trinity and Genebrard is brought into the same Heresie with them But Genebrard with great indignation rejects the Doctrine of Valentinus Gentilis because he held an Inequality in the Persons and denied the individual Vnity of the Godhead in them but he saith he follow'd Damascen in asserting three real Hypostases and he utterly denies Tritheism and he brings a multitude of reasons why the charge of Tritheism doth not lie against his opinion although he owns the Hypostases to be three distinct individuals but then he adds That there is an indivisible and insep●rable Union of the divine Nature in all three Persons Now to deal as impartially in this matter as may be I do not think our understandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis but that it is liable to as great difficulties as any other and therefore none ought to be fond of it or to set it against the general Sense of others and the current Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries nor to call the different opinions of others Heresie or Nonsense which are provoking Words and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions because their Faith and Vnderstanding are both call'd in question which are very tender things But on the other side a difference ought to be made between the Heresie and Blasphemy of Valentinus Gentilis and the opinion of such who maintain the individual and indivisible Unity of the Godhead but withal believe that every Person hath an individual Substance as a Person and that Sabellianism cannot be avoided otherwise Wherein I think they are mistaken and that the Fathers were of another opinion and that our Church owns but one Substance in the Godhead as the Western Church always did which made such difficulty about receiving three Hypostases because they took Hypostasis for a Substance but yet I see no reason why those who assert three Hypostases and mean three individual Substances should be charged with the Heresie of Valentinus Gentilis or so much as with that of Abba● Joachim or Philoponus because they all rejected the individual Unity of the divine Nature which is constantly maintained by the Defenders of the other Hypothesis But it is said and urged with vehemency that these two things are inconsistent with each other that it is going forward and backward being Orthodox in one Breath and otherwise in the next that all this looks like shuffling and concealing the true meaning and acting the old Artifices under a different Form For the Samosatenians and Arians when they were pinched seem'd very Orthodox in their Expressions but retained their Heresies still in their Minds and there is reason to suspect the same Game is playing over again and we cannot be too cautious in a matter of such Consequence I grant very great caution is needfull but the mixture of some Charity with it will do no hurt Why should we suspect those to be inwardly false and to think otherwise than they speak who have shew'd no want of Courage and Zeal at a time when some thought it Prudence to say nothing and never call'd upon their Superiours then to own the cause of God and to do their Duties as they have now done and that in no very obliging manner And if the same Men can be cool and unconcerned at some times when there was so great reason to be otherwise and of a sudden grow very warm and even to boil over with Zeal the World is so ill natur'd as to be too apt to conclude there is some other cause of such an alteration than what openly appears But there is a kind of bitter Zeal which is so fierce and violent that it rather inflames than heals any Wounds that are made and is of so malignant a Nature that it spreads and eats like a Cancer and if a stop were not given to it it might endanger the whole Body I am very sensible how little a Man consults his own ease who offers to interpose in a dispute between Men of Heat and Animosity but this moves me very little when the interest of our Church and Religion is concerned which ought to prevail more than the fear of displeasing one or other Party or it may be both I do heartily wish that all who are equally concerned in the common Cause would lay aside Heats and Prejudices and hard Words and consider this matter impartially and I do not question but they will see cause to judge as I do that the difference is not so great as our Adversaries for their own advantage make it to be And since both sides yield that the matter they dispute about is above their reach the wisest course they can take is to assert and defend what is revealed and not to be too peremptory and quarrelsom about that which is acknowledged to be above our comprehension I mean as to the manner how the three Persons partake of the divine Nature It would be of the most fatal consequence to us if those Weapons which might be so usefully imploy'd against our common Adversaries should still be turned upon one another I know no manner of advantage they have against us but from thence and this is it which makes them write with such Insolence and Scorn towards those who are far their Superiours in Learning and Wit as well as in the Goodness of their cause And is it possible that some of our most skilfull Fencers should play Prizes before them who plainly animate them against each other for their own Diversion and Interest Sometimes one hath the better sometimes the other and one is cried up in Opposition to the other but taken alone is used with the greatest Contempt One Man's work is said to be learned and accurate and the more because it follows that he concerns not himself with the Socinians The wiser Man no doubt for that Reason At another time it is called the Birth of the Mountains and the Author parallel'd with no less a Man than Don Quixot and his elaborate Writings with his Adventures and they ridicule his Notion of Modes as if they were only so many Gambols and Postures And then for his Adversary they hearten and incourage him all they can they tell him He must not allow to the other the least Title of all he contends for least their sport should be spoiled and to comfort him they tell him that his Adversary is a Socinian at bottom and doth not know it that all his Thingums Modes Properties are only an Addition of Words and Names and not of Persons properly so called and that his whole Scheme is nothing but Socinianism drest up in the absurd Cant of the Schools That his Book hath much more Scurrility than Argument that his usage of him was barbarous and a greater Soloecism in manners than any he accuses him of in Grammar or Speech and in short That

to Happiness out of a State of Misery let these be supposed and the Scheme of Christianity will appear very reasonable and fitted to the Condition and Capacity of Mankind And the sublimest Mysteries of it are not intended to puzzle or amuse Mankind as weak Men imagine but they are discover'd for the greatest and best purposes in the World to bring Men to the hatred of Sin and Love of God and a patient continuance in well-doing in order to a blessed Immortality So that this is truly a Mystery of Godliness being intended for the advancement of real Piety and Goodness among Mankind in order to make them happy But as to these Unitarians who have such happy Acquaintance with these conscientious Deists I would fain learn from them if they think them mistaken why they take no more pains to satisfie and convince them for I find they decline saying a word against them In one place they compare the Atheist and Deist together and very honestly and like any conscientious Deists they impute all the Deism and most part of the Atheism of our Age to the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Is it possible for Men that live in our Age to give such an account as this of the Growth of Deism and Atheism among us What number of Atheists is there upon any other account than from a looseness of Thinking and Living Where are those who believe God to be an incomprehensible Being and yet reject the Mysteries which relate to his Being because they are incomprehensible Suppose any reject spiritual Substance as Nonsense and a Contradiction as they do the Trinity on the same Pretences Is this a sufficient reason or not They may tell them as they do us that they can have no Ideas no clear and distinct Perceptions of immaterial Substances What answer do they give in this case Not a Syllable although they take notice of it But I hope they give some better satisfaction to the Deist No for they say This is not a place to argue against either Atheist or Deist By no means some would say They were not such Fools to fall out with their Friends And it cannot be denied that they have been the greatest Incouragers of such kind of Writings which serve their turn so well and in pure Gratitude they forbear to argue against them IV. To shew how near they come to an Indifferency in Religion they speak favourably of Mahometans and Jews and even Tartars because they agree with them in the Vnity of the Godhead What an honest-hearted Deist do they make that Impostor Mahomet One would hardly think such a character could have come out of the Mouth of Christians But these are their Words Mahomet is affirmed by divers Historians to have had no other design in pretending himself to be a Prophet but to restore the Belief of the Unity of God which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Who are those Historians who give this character of him Why are they not named that their authority might be examin'd Was the Morocco Ambassador one of them Or Paulus Alciatus who from a Unitarian turned Mahometan But by the best accounts we can meet with we find that he was a very cunning Impostor and took in from the Jews and Ishmaelites his Countrymen Circumcision from the Christians an honourable mention of Christ as a Prophet and as the the Word and Spirit of God and owned his Miracles from the ancient Hereticks he denied his Suffering but owned his being taken up into Heaven Yea he owned That he had his Gospel from Heaven but that his Disciples changed it after his Death and attributed more to Christ than he assumed to himself Which shews that he had so much Sence as to discern that if the Books of the New Testament were genuine more must be given to Christ than either Mahomet or the Unitarians do allow Let any indifferent Reader compare their character of Mahomet with that of Athanasius which these Men give and they will easily find that they take as much care to blacken one as they do to vindicate the other What Christian Ingenuity is here But Mahomet was a Deist and Athanasius a Trinitarian But they go on Whatsoever the design of Mahomet was its certain that Mahometism hath prevailed over greater Numbers and more Nations than at this day profess Christianity But how Was it not by force of Arms and the Prevalency of the Saracen and Turkish Empire No say these learned Historians It was not by the Force of the Sword but by that one Truth in the Alcoran the Unity of God It were endless to quote the Historians who say That it was Mahomet's Principle to subdue all by Force of Arms who opposed his Religion but the authority of Elmacinus alone is sufficient for in the beginning of his History he owns that it was his Principle To make War upon those that would not submit to his Law And others say that in remembrance of this Their Law is expounded by their Doctors with a Sword drawn by them and that it is the Law of the Alcoran to kill and slay those that oppose it What liberty the Turkish Empire allows to Christians in the conquer'd Provinces is not to this purpose but by what means Mahometism prevailed in the World But say they The Jews as well as Mahometans are alienated from us because they suppose the Trinity to be the Doctrine of all Christians And what then Must we renounce the Christian Doctrine to please the Jews and Mahometans Must we quit Christ's being the Messias because the Jews deny it Or the suffering of Christ because the Mahometans think it inconsistent with his Honour But if this be the truth of the case as to Jews and Mahometans no Persons are so well qualified to endeavour their Conversion as our Unitarians which would be a much better imployment for them than to expose the Christian Doctrine by such Writings among us I am ashamed to mention what they say of the Tartars when they call them The Shield and Sword of that way of acknowledging and worshipping God So that Mahometans Jews and Tartars are fairly represented because they agree in the grand Fundamental of the Vnity of the Godhead but the Christian Church is charged with believing Impossibilities Contradictions and pure Nonsense And thus we find our Unitarians serving the Deists in all their methods of overthrowing Revealed Religion and advancing Deism among us And if this will not awaken us to look more after them and unite us in the defence of our Common Cause against them I do not think that other Methods will do it For it is become a Restless and Active although as yet but a small Body of Men and they tell the World plainly enough that they are free from the Biasses of Hopes and Fears and sit loose from the Awes and Bribes of the

enough to prove the necessity of the Invocation of Christ which he said he could do from his Priesthood and his Power from the Examples of the Apostles and the very Nature of Adoration And Blandrata was a Man of great authority among the Vnitarians and he thought Socinus ought to assert the necessity of it or else he would do injury both to Christ and to his Cause In the dispute with Francken Socinus went upon this ground that divine Authority was a sufficient ground for divine Worship although there were not those essential Attributes of Omnisciency and Omnipotency But I observe that Socinus did not look on this as a matter of Liberty as our Vnitarians now seem to do for in the Preface to the former Dispute he calls the Error of denying the Invocation of Christ not as they now do a simple Error or a mere mistake but a most filthy and pernicious Error an Error that leads to Iudaism and is in effect the denying of Christ and in the latter Dispute he saith That it tends to Epicurism and Atheism And Smalcius saith That they are no Christians who refuse giving divine Worship to Christ. 2. Is it like wise Men to go upon such grounds as will justifie both Pagan and Popish Idolatry This they have been charged with and we shall see what wise Men they are by the Defences they make for themselves 1. As to Pagan Idolatry they say 1. They had no divine command for such a Worship This was well thought of when they confess that some among themselves deny that there is any command for invocating Christ and therefore they must charge all those who do it with Idolatry But this is no very wise Notion of Idolatry which depends upon the Nature of the Worship and not the meer positive Will of God 2. They set up the Creatures more than the Creator as S. Paul saith S. Paul doth not think them such Fools that they took the Creatures to be above the Creator which was impossible while they owned one to be the Creator and the other the Creatures but that they g●ve such acts of Worship to them as belonged only to the Creator and exceeded in the Worship of them those bounds which ought to be between them 3. They set up an infinite Number of Gods who had been mere Men. This is as if the question were only whether one or a great many were to have such Worship given them as if it were a dispute about a Monarchy or a Common-wealth of Gods But if it be lawfull to give divine Worship to one Creature it is to a hundred 4. Their Worship was terminated on them and so they made true Gods of Men. Suppose they asserted one supreme God and made the rest subordinate to him and appointed by him to be the immediate Directors of humane Affairs I desire to know Whether the Adoration of such were Idolatry or not If it were they cannot be excused who give Adoration to Christ while they esteem him a mere Creature if not all the wiser Pagans must be excused 2. As to the Papists the difference they make is not like wise Interpreters of Scripture for they say 1. They have no Text of Scripture which commands them to worship S. Peter S. Paul and S. Francis So some among them say there is none for the Invocation of Christ and with them the case is Parallel But if Socinus his Principle be true that communicated Excellency is a sufficient Foundation for Worship because it is relative to the Giver then the Papists must be justified in all their relative Acts of Worship without any Text to command it 2. They exceed the Bounds of Honour and Respect due to glorified Saints But who is to set these Bounds but themselves in all Acts of relative Worship because they depend upon the intention of the Persons And they hold the very same things concerning communicated Knowledge and Power from God which our Vnitarians make use of to justifie their Notion of the Invocation of Christ. VII Is this interpreting Scripture like wise Men to turn S. Paul's words Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever into a Thanksgiving to God for the Exaltation of Christ i. e. God who is over all be blessed for ever But what reason do they give for such a forced and unusual Sense besides the avoiding the difficulty of having the Name of God given here to Christ A very substantial one If the words had been intended of Christ it would have been in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they have taken up from Erasmus and Curcellaeus But Beza who understood Greek as well as either and Curcellaeus owned him for his Master in that Tongue saith He could not sufficiently wonder at this Criticism of Erasmus and thinks it a violent and far-fetched Interpretation and not agreeable to the Greek Idiom and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And which may signifie more to our Vnitarians one of the learnedst Men they have had among them utterly disowns this Interpretation and saith That the whole Verse belongs to Christ. But if that will not do they have another fetch in the case viz. That it is very probable that the word God was not originally in the Text. How doth this appear to be very probable Of that we have this account Grotius observes that the Greek Copies used by the Author of the Syriac had not the word God and that Erasmus had noted that the Copies of S. Cyprian S. Hilary and S. Chrysostom had only blessed over all or above all without the word God upon which he charges his Adversary with no less than Impiety in concealing this and calls it cheating his Reader But how if all this prove a gross Mistake in him unless it be only that Grotius and Erasmus come in for their shares It 's true that Grotius saith That the word God was left out in the Syriac Version But F. Simon whose authority they sometimes magnifie as to critical Learning saith plainly That Grotius was mistaken and that the word God is in all the old Copies and in all the old Versions And upon his bringing Erasmus to prove that it was not in S. Cyprian S. Hilary and S. Chrysostome he cries out Where is Sincerity Erasmus had met with one faulty Edition which had it not but he saith all the rest of the MSS. have it And the learned Oxford Annotators both on S. Cyprian and the Greek Testament compar'd with MSS. which excellent Work we hope will shortly appear more publickly declare that they found it in all the MSS. they could meet with and even Erasmus himself saith That the Omission in S. Hilary might be only by the negligence of the Transcribers and so it appears by the late Edition out of the best MSS. where